ESPN has lost 10 million subscribers since 2013

[dales5050]

ESPN Loses Another 1.5 Million Subscribers As Cord Cutting Accelerates

So how long before the house of cards that is ESPN Conference Money falls apart? Do they even make it to the end of these new deals? From the article:

Since every ESPN subscriber is worth roughly $80 a year to the company that means every single day in February, March, April and May ESPN lost over $800k in yearly subscriber revenue. Every. Single. Day. This also means that ESPN has now lost 10 million subscribers in the past 2.5 years. Figuring that each of these subscribers is paying in the neighborhood of $80 a year and we're talking about ESPN losing revenue of $840 million a year in the past three years. That's over $2.5 billion the network was expecting that it will never see. Toss in the subscriber losses at ESPN2 and ESPNU and ESPN has lost over a billion dollars a year, three billion total, in revenue over the past three years.​

I must say it's enjoyable talking about revenues from 3rd parties like ESPN and Under Armour with fans of other conferences and teams.

Found a guy who is a UCLA fan trying to suggest the UCLA deal with UA is better than the ND deal. Was not comprehending the ND deal allowed for stock in lieu cash. Malpass (again) for the win on that one.

Then you have these big10 fans talking about how ND can't survive without the type of conference deals they get...but fail to accept the challenges on the horizon for ESPN compared to the steady and sure NBC deal.

When you are a network that's hemorrhaging almost a billion a year and growing..it's really difficult to see ESPN paying Maryland $40 million plus a season in exchange for the rights to show Michigan and Ohio State games.

Even better is the big 10 thought they were smart and only locked in their deal to 2022-23, whereas the SEC locked in to 2033-34. They are in for a rude wake up in 8 years.

Enjoy Rutgers and that NYC media market....lol

 

[wizards8507]

Using "ESPN" in that headline is kind of click-baity. ESPN doesn't lose subscribers all by itself. When ESPN loses a subscriber, so do Comcast, Disney Channel, Turner, FS1, and News Corp. It's a brave new world in the media business, but ESPN isn't flying solo.

 

[Booslum31]

Had no idea ESPN was losing subscribers...let alone in those volumes. It just feels to me that ESPN is more dominant than ever before.

 

[wizards8507]

Had no idea ESPN was losing subscribers...let alone in those volumes. It just feels to me that ESPN is more dominant than ever before.

The article is a bit misleading. The biggest issue isn't people cancelling their cable subscription, it's the damn millennials who aren't signing up in the first place.

 

[Rack Em]

Using "ESPN" in that headline is kind of click-baity. ESPN doesn't lose subscribers all by itself. When ESPN loses a subscriber, so do Comcast, Disney Channel, Turner, FS1, and News Corp. It's a brave new world in the media business, but ESPN isn't flying solo.

 

[IrishLax]

Had no idea ESPN was losing subscribers...let alone in those volumes. It just feels to me that ESPN is more dominant than ever before.

As Wiz said, that's because it's not "ESPN" that is losing them... it's a product of cable television cord cutters. Pretty much every one they lose, every other cable channel also loses... with some rare exceptions (i.e. content packages for partial cord cutters).

ESPN actually prepared better for this than most. No one has a digital content platform even close to what they have.

 

[wizards8507]

 

[Blaise]

This isn't a ESPN problem... This is a massive television problem... NBC ratings aren't as strong as 15 years ago, Sports are the one thing that continues to draw ratings, but with more and more people opting not to get cable, or just go strictly the Netflix and hulu route, you will begin to get less and less of the casual sports fan to stop at a game and watch it, because they are not channel surfing in the first place...

It will be extremely interesting to see trends over the next 5-10 years and how cable companies react and how these networks figure out what they can actually afford to pay for rights to games

 

[wizards8507]

This isn't a ESPN problem... This is a massive television problem... NBC ratings aren't as strong as 15 years ago, Sports are the one thing that continues to draw ratings, but with more and more people opting not to get cable, or just go strictly the Netflix and hulu route, you will begin to get less and less of the casual sports fan to stop at a game and watch it, because they are not channel surfing in the first place...

What those people don't realize is that they're not actually saving any money by doing that unless they live somewhere with free or subsidized broadband. Once they pay for their internet connection then tack on Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now, they're paying what they would have paid for a package in the first place.

It will be extremely interesting to see trends over the next 5-10 years and how cable companies react and how these networks figure out what they can actually afford to pay for rights to games

Indeed.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I have no problem with cord-cutters. Perhaps these media giants shouldn't be charging the prices they do for cable/internet packages. Just my opinion.

I can get everything I need (except BTN) by having an internet subscription, Sling TV subscription + HBO, Netflix, and a good antenna. Costs are around $85/month. Compare that to some of my co-workers who have Comcast Xfinity and pay $250/month.

 

[Monk]

Hopefully this will start to put a leash on the payment that is given out to coaches (NFL and college) and the players (NFL and college). As much of a fan as I am of football and sports in general, the price tag is getting ridiculous for entertainment.

 

[NorthDakota]

This isn't a ESPN problem... This is a massive television problem... NBC ratings aren't as strong as 15 years ago, Sports are the one thing that continues to draw ratings, but with more and more people opting not to get cable, or just go strictly the Netflix and hulu route, you will begin to get less and less of the casual sports fan to stop at a game and watch it, because they are not channel surfing in the first place...

It will be extremely interesting to see trends over the next 5-10 years and how cable companies react and how these networks figure out what they can actually afford to pay for rights to games

Yeah, I haven't had cable/directv for the past year or so...the amount of random sports I watch has taken a big nose dive. I use my parent's info so I can use watchESPN and NBC Sports. The only time I'm ever on those sorts of things though, is when I know what I want to see.

 

[koonja]

What do you guys pay for cable? My comcast bill is $155 a month, and that's a rented modem, 25 MGBP of internet speed, 2 'viewing only' boxes, and 2 'DVR' boxes, and ~ 150 HD channels. No premiums (HBO, but that's free for me until Sept).

I actually feel like it's pretty reasonable.

 

[wizards8507]

I have no problem with cord-cutters. Perhaps these media giants shouldn't be charging the prices they do for cable/internet packages. Just my opinion.

I can get everything I need (except BTN) by having an internet subscription, Sling TV subscription + HBO, Netflix, and a good antenna. Costs are around $85/month. Compare that to some of my co-workers who have Comcast Xfinity and pay $250/month.

Then your coworkers aren't the brightest. I have home phone, Blast internet, and Digital Preferred with Starz and HBO and I'm paying $100 in the first year of my contract and $150 in the second year of the contract. What people don't realize is that you can get those promotional rates right back even after your contract term expires and you bump up to "full price" of $250.

What do you guys pay for cable? My comcast bill is $155 a month, and that's a rented modem, 25 MGBP of internet speed, 2 'viewing only' boxes, and 2 'DVR' boxes, and ~ 150 HD channels. No premiums (HBO, but that's free for me until Sept).

I actually feel like it's pretty reasonable.

That's about right. I have HBO and better Internet than you but I'm only using one DVR and one regular box and pay about the same.

 

[woolybug25]

If Comcast loses in this, then I am pleased.

They can go directly to hell.

 

[wizards8507]

If Comcast loses in this, then I am pleased.

They can go directly to hell.

Comcast can't lose. Even if content providers go direct-to-consumer over the Interwebz and cut out the distributors, Comcast and the distributors control the broadband, too.

Comcast won't lose until the wireless networks have enough speed and capacity to cut fiber and copper out of the equation entirely.

 

[dales5050]

Using "ESPN" in that headline is kind of click-baity. ESPN doesn't lose subscribers all by itself. When ESPN loses a subscriber, so do Comcast, Disney Channel, Turner, FS1, and News Corp. It's a brave new world in the media business, but ESPN isn't flying solo.

It was the subheadline from the linked post. Also, ESPN is losing at a different % than the others.

I don't recall the specifics of the deal but ESPN made a horrible move a couple of years ago. In exchange for 'something' from cable providers they allowed ESPN to be unbundled from the basic cable package. It was this move that has caused ESPN so much pain.

They built their empire on forced subscriber revenue and now are watching it crumble because they gave up the best card in their hand.

 

[woolybug25]

Comcast can't lose. Even if content providers go direct-to-consumer over the Interwebz and cut out the distributors, Comcast and the distributors control the broadband, too.

Comcast won't lose until the wireless networks have enough speed and capacity to cut fiber and copper out of the equation entirely.

Damn it.

 

[Monk]

I'm at $130 for TWC. This includes Normal Cable with no premium channels (~150 channels), normal high speed internet (no boost and I own my own modem), and home phone (which we do not use). This price is up from $108 last year which obviously was great, but they bumped us. I am not a fan of paying the $130/month, but the biggest thing is they flat out lied to us on the phone when it went up. They said we would receive a $300 gift card in the mail which we could use to pay our bill and now they will not respond to us when we ask where it is.

Sorry if this is considered off topic. Remove if necessary.

 

[Rocket 94]

What do you guys pay for cable? My comcast bill is $155 a month, and that's a rented modem, 25 MGBP of internet speed, 2 'viewing only' boxes, and 2 'DVR' boxes, and ~ 150 HD channels. No premiums (HBO, but that's free for me until Sept).

I actually feel like it's pretty reasonable.

I pay $159 a month from Comcast for everything you have. I think it is reasonable as well. I can say that Comcast's customer service has gotten a lot better over the last three years. They don't want to lose subscribers are doing anything to keep them.

 

[wizards8507]

It was the subheadline from the linked post. Also, ESPN is losing at a different % than the others.

I don't recall the specifics of the deal but ESPN made a horrible move a couple of years ago. In exchange for 'something' from cable providers they allowed ESPN to be unbundled from the basic cable package. It was this move that has caused ESPN so much pain.

They built their empire on forced subscriber revenue and now are watching it crumble because they gave up the best card in their hand.

Come on man, be for real. You can't post an article about ESPN from Fox Sports and expect it to be a fair and accurate portrayal of the sports media landscape. They have a sub-headline about ESPN's subscriber declines since 2013... conveniently that's when FS1 was introduced.

I can say that Comcast's customer service has gotten a lot better over the last three years.

Yes! They used to be shockingly terrible but now when you call them they're actually pretty friendly and, dare I say, helpful.

 

[koonja]

I've only been a comcast customer for 10 months but haven't had any problems with their product. Have not encountered their customer service, though, which seems to be where the issues come.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Then your coworkers aren't the brightest. I have home phone, Blast internet, and Digital Preferred with Starz and HBO and I'm paying $100 in the first year of my contract and $150 in the second year of the contract. What people don't realize is that you can get those promotional rates right back even after your contract term expires and you bump up to "full price" of $250.

There are some extremely pricey packages with Comcast if you get fastest internet and highest channel packages. Plus if you add phone, security package, additional HD DVRs, etc...it adds up. They also tack on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Is it my fault they pay so much? No. Some people want all that stuff and are willing to pay for it. My point with cord-cutting, is that some people don't want all that shit. They don't even want the basic $100-$150 Comcast bill. Some cities offer third party internet services for like $30/mo, if you add only Sling TV for $25, then you've just saved yourself over $100/mo.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Also, I get sick and tired of people bagging on millennials for taking a step back and evaluating the current cable/internet system, giving it the bird, and finding new cost-saving ways to get what they want/need.

Ask your parents how much they paid for basic cable back in the day, even with ESPN and other "premium" channels. Then came AOL. What did they pay for that? You can make the argument that you didn't get anywhere near the available options, but you also didn't pay anywhere near the amount of money. Some people don't want 200+ channels. They just need internet and their 5-10 favorite channels.

 

[wizards8507]

There are some extremely pricey packages with Comcast if you get fastest internet and highest channel packages. Plus if you add phone, security package, additional HD DVRs, etc...it adds up. They also tack on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Is it my fault they pay so much? No. Some people want all that stuff and are willing to pay for it. My point with cord-cutting, is that some people don't want all that shit. They don't even want the basic $100-$150 Comcast bill. Some cities offer third party internet services for like $30/mo, if you add only Sling TV for $25, then you've just saved yourself over $100/mo.

Understood, but most people don't live in cities with subsidized broadband and they'd have to bend over and take it from Comcast to the tune of $80 a month just for internet. Then, when you add Netflix and Hulu and whatever else, you're paying the same for less.

Also, I get sick and tired of people bagging on millennials for taking a step back and evaluating the current cable/internet system, giving it the bird, and finding new cost-saving ways to get what they want/need.

Don't be so sensitive. "These damn millennials..." was a joke, like "stay off my lawn," "turn off that rock and roll music," or "harrumph, fullbacks!"

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Also, I get sick and tired of people bagging on millennials for taking a step back and evaluating the current cable/internet system, giving it the bird, and finding new cost-saving ways to get what they want/need.

Ask your parents how much they paid for basic cable back in the day, even with ESPN and other "premium" channels. Then came AOL. What did they pay for that? You can make the argument that you didn't get anywhere near the available options, but you also didn't pay anywhere near the amount of money. Some people don't want 200+ channels. They just need internet and their 5-10 favorite channels.

That's the majority of us.

 

[Rack Em]

There are some extremely pricey packages with Comcast if you get fastest internet and highest channel packages. Plus if you add phone, security package, additional HD DVRs, etc...it adds up. They also tack on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Is it my fault they pay so much? No. Some people want all that stuff and are willing to pay for it. My point with cord-cutting, is that some people don't want all that shit. They don't even want the basic $100-$150 Comcast bill. Some cities offer third party internet services for like $30/mo, if you add only Sling TV for $25, then you've just saved yourself over $100/mo.

This is where I'm at. I'm paying ~$135 a month to Time Warner for 30/mbps, 150 channels, and phone. But we literally watch like 10 channels, most of which are on SlingTV.

Pretty sure I'm going to cut the cord when we move next month. Pay $50/month for 75/mbps internet, $14 for SlingTV via a promotion, buy a $30 HD antenna, and probably snag a single-team MLB TV subscription with my student discount for $55/year.

That brings me down to $75/month for internet and SlingTV. Or ~$82 if I break all the fixed costs out for just one year. I'm basically saving $60/month right off the bat. $720/year is some serious cash so blow me cable companies.

-I get ND football through the HD antenna or SlingTV when they're on ESPN or ESPN2.
-I can watch the Cards on MLB TV.
-On CFB Saturdays, I can watch all the major games I watch now (except the Pac12 on Fox1 and the shit fest that ends up on B1G Network and ESPNU).
-AMC for Turn and Better Call Saul.
-March Madness through the HD Antenna and TNT/TBS on SlingTV (at least 75% of games)

 

[woolybug25]

I've only been a comcast customer for 10 months but haven't had any problems with their product. Have not encountered their customer service, though, which seems to be where the issues come.

Recently, I went a month where every day I lost Internet and tv for a few hours. We called 5 times before they ran a test over the phone and told me that there was a connection problem at the pole and that they would send a technician at no cost to me.

Fast forward, the guy came out and fixed it at the pole. I get my bill and its $258. They charged me for the technician and all my "promo" stuff went off. I called three times before a nice Indian lady asked me if we could "bargain with each other". I laughed and played along. She gave me my original deal back and my dvr free for a year. She tried to get me in a new contract, but I said no.

Two years with Comcast; 5 technician visits, 30+ phone calls and I can't even get HBO on my other tv's without paying an additional $30 a month. Fuq them.

Somebody give me the recipe for cutting the cord and getting the following:

- 3 tv's with service
- high speed internet
- sports
- HBO
- AMC
- dvr or playback ability
- zero risk of missing any Notre Dame game

I'm all ears.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Understood, but most people don't live in cities with subsidized broadband and they'd have to bend over and take it from Comcast to the tune of $80 a month just for internet. Then, when you add Netflix and Hulu and whatever else, you're paying the same for less.


Don't be so sensitive. "These damn millennials..." was a joke, like "stay off my lawn," "turn off that rock and roll music," or "harrumph, fullbacks!"

Comcast internet starts at $40 and you can get Blast for $60. Plus SlingTV ($25) and you can get substantial savings even while using Comcast internet. The problem comes when, like you mentioned earlier, when people start adding on Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc. At that point, you're not saving yourself any money and you're adding a level of inconvenience.

My millennial comment wasn't just to you. The article even broke it up by age group. People bag on millennials all the time, but this is one area where younger generations are using technology to their advantage and saving themselves money. It was just something I wanted to point out.

 

[wizards8507]

Somebody give me the recipe for cutting the cord and getting the following:

- 3 tv's with service
- high speed internet
- sports
- HBO
- AMC
- dvr or playback ability
- zero risk of missing any Notre Dame game

I'm all ears.

Not going to happen, solely based on the "zero risk of missing any Notre Dame game" criterion. For the foreseeable future, Notre Dame games could be on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ESPN, FS1, NBCSN. There's no way to get the last two without a package.